Thursday, March 08, 2007
Piper at Nine Marks
The latest audio interview is up on the 9 Marks website here discussing the NPP and the infamous fifth point with Piper. Though I've yet to listen to it, I will be shortly. Piper's always good and his understanding of the particular redemption (at least as unfolded in his TULIP series) was one of the most helpful I've heard. However, on previous occaisions he has seemed a bit overly critical of the NPP; especially Tom Wright. Either way, with the volume he's doing on Justification, I'm sure his criticisms will be finely honed and informed...it ought to be good stuff.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
It is a sweet interview. It is basically Piper challenging Ware on particular redepemption and Ware struggling to make any sense. Piper actually says that he is not giving up hope on Ware, but he really thinks that Ware will come to realize his error. The bottom line throughout all of this interview is that Piper is sweet. He is an amazing man of God. Definitely listen to the interview
I listened to the interview. It was enjoyable. The Piper/Ware discussion was good. Piper was off, in my opinion on his understanding of the function of Colossians 1. However, Ware's final position that Christ died for the elect and non-elect in the same objective way is untenable.
Having not read Wright on justification I'm not allowed to enter the discussion. But if Piper is right, then Wright is an angel of light 2 Corinthians 11 style.
The rest of the interview was what I enjoyed the most. Just hearing two men of God whom I greatly respect "table talk" was a delight.
Easy on T.W. I hate to think where the same analysis would leave your boy Jimmie Stewart :-) I don't think Piper and Wright are as far apart as Piper may think; that is, I think Piper may be a subset of Wright (a hyper subset to be sure), though neither might want to phrase it that way...however I yeild until I've finished listening to the interview.
What do you mean that Piper is a "subset" of Wright?
In recent days, I'm not sure Wright eliminates the soteriological implications of Justification (anymore), I think he sees it as that and more. Thus, what Piper believes would fit in under what Wright believes. Yet, even as I type this, perhaps that's not entirely true. I know Wright is not very comfortable with the idea of imputation. So putting Piper as a subset is probabaly not the best model. I guess my point is he would affirm most of what Piper would soteriologicaly (maybe all); the difference is he gets there via another route; in other words, what Piper credits (yes pun intended) to justification Wright would attribute to Union. So, what I was meant was that they both affirm Gospel truth, they simply do it in different ways (with different categories). I'm inclined to think Piper may overemphasize the place of imputation in the Gospel. While I think I agree with Piper here (though I like Bird's nuancing better about incorporated righteousness) the Gospel is bigger/broader than Justification/Imputation. In other words, if you define Justification differently or deny imputation, that doesn't ipso facto render you an Angel of light; particularly if you still affirm 1 Corinthians 15:1-5.
You might find this link interesting: Naselli's observations on Wright.
Post a Comment